LOUNE –
Your avoiding my questions, or just giving flippant answers
You don’t care if your proposal puts (estimating) 2-3 times more armed people on the streets? I wonder how other anti-gun people feel about that. Or pro-gun people for that mater.
You missed the most important question -
To this question -
You responded –
Certainly you must have something in mind?
And question #3 was not responded to either –
There really isn’t a debate if you won’t try to defend your positions or ideas.
E-Sabbath A question about this statement -
I guess you are assuming that the new requirement for a CCW and penalties for not having one would be so severe that law abiding people would just turn over their handguns?
I saw where you where headed with this. That only legal gun owners would comply. But I just wanted to clarify.
IMHO, the people that I know that own handguns would just get the CCW. They wouldn’t turn them in. LOUNE doesn’t even hint at how restrictive these new laws would be, so I think you are operating under the assumption that these new laws would be so strict as to make it exceedingly difficult for legal handgun owners to get a CCW.
Is that your thought?
That’s a possibility to be sure.
I was giving LOUNE the benefit of the doubt, and assuming that many people would not have the financial resources to pay, say, $5000/yr to own a pistol. (Not sure if that’s constitutional: see poll taxes, but hey, we’re going off on LOUNE’s tangent.)
I realize that you never said that. I realize the point you were trying to make. I wouldn’t assume that criminals would turn theirs in without a reason. Perhaps couple it with a felony amnesty program or something. I wouldn’t assume that the handguns in the hands of felons would necessarily make it back.
Again, E-Sabbath, the people that would want to be able to have a handgun would grow. hence why the requirements for a CCW would increase. Would it be too much to, hypothetically, say that there should be a longer waiting period or a more in-depth background search for increased CCW demands?
enipla: No. I don’t care that more people would potentially be armed. People with CCW permits aren’t the criminals. If you aren’t causing crime, then I’ve got no problem with you having a gun. I don’t want to speculate about the CCW laws because I’m not versed on them. That’s pertinent because, as it’s been pointed out, they’re inconsistent. Shall we start the talk about what the proposed CCW permits would include? And no, I wouldn’t want to make the CCW exorbitantly priced. I’m not about trying to get rid of all guns through a back-door measure. I must have missed the part about penalties for people that would have a handgun without a CCW. I’d say that you forfeit the right to apply for a CCW in the future. I don’t know if I’d go as far as to suggest a nationwide database of such folks. Confiscation of said weapons from that individual is obvious, naturally.
What would you suggest for a fair punishment to a scenario, or am I asking the wrong group of people?
The point is that more people would be actively carrying their guns around. Is that a desirable outcome for you, LOUNE?
If they’re not going to be committing a crime with it, it’s fine by me.
Okay. So there are more pistols on the streets, the criminals have failed to be disarmed, and fewer people own pistols.
Why is this a good thing?
i can’t seem to find how many guns are manufactured each year though i would imagine it to be a disturbingly high number. any relations between number of guns made vs guns sold - i.e. how many black market guns are there and who’s supplying all this military surplus?
Obviously this doesn’t change the face of crime overnight. It takes time to cycle the illegal handguns out of rotation.
pancakes3: That’s an interesting point. Another thing to consider would be limiting the amount of handguns made. I can’t see pro-gun folks happy with that, though.
Hmmm. As it stands, after a background check and waiting period (I agree that that stuff should be normalized) a person can buy a hand gun and be legal. Your proposal would not only mean that it is legal, but that they can carry it in public. 99% (guestimate) of legal gun owners don’t carry. They have no need or desire to. BUT. People being the way they are, more people will carry just because they can. Because they have been FORCED to taking the test to be able to. This just does not sound like a good idea.
Really?
I don’t have a CCW. I don’t cause crime. I have two legal handguns. Neither of which I purchased for myself. The only time they leave my house is to take them to property that I own to target shoot them. The vast majority of legal handgun owners are like me (with the difference that they take them to the range to shoot instead of private property).
You seem to be drawing a distinction between CCW permit holders and other legal handgun owners. And that legal gun owners are more likely to commit a crime than someone with a CCW. Considering how few CCW permit holders there are compared to regular legal gun owners, statistic would prove that to be true. And it’s not a reasonable comparison.
Forcing me and all EXISTING legal handgun owners to get a CCW that they don’t want won’t make them less likely to commit a crime. It will piss them off though. I ask again – **
**
I’m not well versed in CCW laws either, since I have no desire to get a CCW.
But if you want to discuss it, I’ll start here -
A quick google of Colorado Gun Laws. I’m OK with them. The only part that gives me pause is this –
But I’m OK with it. Sheriffs don’t seem to be abusing their authority.
The gun laws in Colorado are OK with me. What would you change?
I’ll reserve my thoughts on this until you comment on some of the above.
I fail to see how your plan would cycle any illegal handguns out of rotation. It would cycle many handguns into illegal rotation, and various grey market imports would cycle more in.
(It’s happened in my home town, for example, that policemen were selling the guns for cash guns to criminals.)
I’m not ignoring you guys, I’m just hella busy.
It appears that the problem in your scenario is crooked cops, E-Sabbath.
Human nature, LOUNE. I’m assuming at least one crooked cop somewhere, but I’m also assuming that most of the supply is grey market from Mexico or Canada.
Why would the illegal handguns leave current use? There’s tricks involving swapping them to different cities after a crime right now.
Human nature is greed, or human nature is poisoning the very community you’ve sworn to protect?
Is that it LOUNE? Well, we are all busy. And a happy Thanksgiving to everyone.
Human nature is that there will be a bad apple in every barrel. Sort of like Sturgeon’s law in inverse. 95% of everyone is good and decent. But that one guy can screw it up for everyone.
I took a quick perusal of those laws and realized that I don’t really have anything to compare it against. What state would have the strictest CCW laws?
Beats me. I’m a legal gun owner that could, but has no desire to get a CCW.
It looks like CCW is not available in Illinois or Wisconsin. I guess that would qualify as strictest.
I’m not going to pour through the different gun laws for each state. Making everyone that owns a handgun get a CCW is your idea.
It may be a good idea to at least try to justify it. LOUNE, you seem to be like most anti-gun folks.
I don’t want to sound snarky, but……
And - You continue to avoid questions.
There are a couple places that prohibit concealed carry, or handgun ownership period. People talk about “shall issue” or “may issue”, but it really boils down to how much discretion is given to individual permitting agencies of individuals.
Part of the reason “common sense gun laws” are looked at so skeptically is the way in which any licensing/permitting/regulating/registration authority has been abused in the past. Go visit a forum for gun owners in a “may issue” state and find a thread about CCWs… they know which counties are where the sheriff (or whomever) can be expected to administer his duties at least fairly and which places certain rights apparently aren’t for us commoners.
So… the strictest, least flexible, laws are probably going to be in a “shall issue” state. They’re written inflexibly because the authors know how any wiggle room will be used by some to further their personal agenda to suppress rights.
Consider me one of those. My state has 99 counties. In each, the elected sheriff determines who can and cannot have a permit. Some sheriffs are a defacto “shall issue” county in that anyone who can pass a background check or maybe some other measures will get a permit. Other county sheriffs do not consider anyone, other than their friends, or politically connected cronies, worthy.
Now, those same sheriffs have to recognize the permits issued in the other counties but they can hold all of their own constituents from owning said permit. Various groups have offered legislation to combine all 99 counties into using one set of regulations. Those anti groups pushing for “reasonable” restrictions have successfully fought these efforts at every turn. What is more reasonable than the same laws for everyone, regardless of their mailing address?